date:20140617

On 16 June 2014 22:44, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Liz, have you Kiwis no sense of shame?
>
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/zealand-may-kick-start-race-mine-ocean-floor-211229873--finance.html;_ylt=AwrBJR66KJ5Taz0APtTQtDMD
>
> Ah, Kiwis,weak link, in the global chain of world socialism and
> environmentaly correct thinking!
>
> It appears this proposal has been rejected by the Environmental Protection
Agency.

https://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/24263642/rejection-of-mining-proposal-victory-for-common-sense/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: O-machines

2014-06-17 Thread Quentin Anciaux

It seems to me Olympia is a simple table lookup for the input, the argument
he uses to place it in the oracle camp seems invalid to me, he posits that
he is able to construct a lookup table that contains the result of the
halting problem... and because such table is a lookup table, all lookup
tables are then oracle... that doesn't seem correct to me.

Regards,
Quentin


2014-06-18 7:23 GMT+02:00 meekerdb :

>  Bruno, I wonder if you're aware of this critique of Maudlin's Olympia
> argument, which of course also applies to the MGA?
>
> http://www.colinklein.org/papers/OlympiaOMachines.pdf
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Solar power's "bright future" [ may be brighter thanks to us aping the quantum trickery of certain algae (cryptophytes specifically)]

On 6/17/2014 9:36 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:

Pretty neat trick.. using quantum coherence to allow energy from captured
sunlight to get to the algae's photosynthesis reaction centers as fast as
possible.

Quantum biology: Algae may prove to be key ingredient for organic solar
cells

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/8680/20140617/algae-may-prove-key-ingredie
nt-organic-solar-cells.htm

A research team led by Australian scientists says a strange quantum
phenomenon during photosynthesis that allows algae to survive in low lights
levels might lead to more efficient organic-based solar cells.

The exact function of the quantum effect known as coherence in algae is
unknown, they say, but likely is how they harvest energy from the sun at low
light levels.

"We studied tiny single-celled algae called cryptophytes that thrive in the
bottom of pools of water, or under thick ice, where very little light
reaches them," says senior study author Paul Curmi of the University of New
South Wales.

What is baffling to me is that photosynthesis in algae relies on absorption in the red and
blue part of the spectrum, but reflects the big green part in between?? Why didn't it
evolve another pigment to capture that in order to live in low light conditions?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

O-machines

2014-06-17 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

Bruno, I wonder if you're aware of this critique of Maudlin's Olympia argument, which of 
course also applies to the MGA?


http://www.colinklein.org/papers/OlympiaOMachines.pdf

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: Solar power's "bright future"

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 8:59 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Solar power's "bright future"

I hope so. I must admit I was a bit taken aback so I was kind of hoping someone 
here might contradict this guy!

Haha… okay let me have a go at it.

The authors assumptions seem to be fundamentally based off using what is a 
historically low price region for natural gas that has resulted from the 
massive capitalization of fracked natural gas wells over the last decade. The 
assumption that this price regime will continue is false – IMO – and he is 
plugging these low numbers into his model. 

The current shale (both oil & gas) boom in North America is unsustainable and 
there are increasingly clear signs – including clear market signals from the 
oil majors – that the boom times are coming to an end. The river of capital 
that has flooded into the upstream extraction sectors… the drillers has 
certainly generated a lot of transient economic activity and has resulted in 
quite a bit of gas and oil getting squeezed out. But the feeding frenzy is 
over; the hangover is just beginning. The majors have sobered up and realized 
that the return on capital expenditure is marginal at best. This boom was based 
on future production predictions drawn from past experience with traditional 
gas (and oil fields) and it was based on the long term predictions drawn from 
this source of well production data that the boom was justified and sold on. 

Fracked reserves are NOT the same as traditional free flowing reserves. This is 
becoming clear. Older fields – notably the Eagle-Ford in Texas – are beginning 
to show that instead the depletion rates for fracked wells is, in general much 
higher than that for traditional wells. The drop off from the first year peaks 
is dramatic and the costs associated with keeping a well producing year after 
year is much higher than was thought (naively or more likely blinded by greed).

His study is based on applying these historically low natural gas prices (in 
North America) into his economic costing model. I am arguing that this is a 
faulty premise and that the current era of low natural gas prices will be 
ending within a few years as the current stock of fracked wells ages and 
depletion begins its inexorable march down to the margins and not enough 
replacement wells are put in (there just is not enough available capital to 
sustain the kind of drilling rate that would be required; not to speak of other 
critical gating factors, such as the limited availability of usable water – 
much of the shale + Canadian tar sand deposits are in dry high areas of the 
continental land mass… and both extraction processes suck down huge amounts of 
water)

Once this very temporary era of relatively cheap natural gas comes to an end – 
as it will within five years or so – the fundamentals upon which he drew his 
conclusions will have dramatically changed.

It seems – and I only read it over once so I could be off the mark – that the 
study draws long term conclusions using a very temporary North American, gas 
supply and price environment that is soon drawing to an end… as it’s fossil 
costing baseline for natural gas.

Chris

On 18 June 2014 15:46, Russell Standish  wrote:

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:30:13PM +1200, LizR wrote:
> http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/headlines/Reichelstein-solar-2012.html
>
> Although the cost of solar has been dropping as mentioned he reckons we are
> 15 years away from it being viable for the average householder to install
> it.
>

Really that long? 2 years ago it was viable with the extraordinary
feedin tariff we got here (60c - about 3 times the cost of
electricity at the time, about twice what it is now). A ton of people
installed it at the time. (Well actually many, many tons, if you want
to be pedantic.) At the rate electricity costs are going up, I expect
it would be viable within 5 years, even assuming the cost of
photovolatics stays the same as it is now.

Cheers

--

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://g

RE: Solar power's "bright future" [ may be brighter thanks to us aping the quantum trickery of certain algae (cryptophytes specifically)]

2014-06-17 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

Pretty neat trick.. using quantum coherence to allow energy from captured
sunlight to get to the algae's photosynthesis reaction centers as fast as
possible.  

Quantum biology: Algae may prove to be key ingredient for organic solar
cells

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/8680/20140617/algae-may-prove-key-ingredie
nt-organic-solar-cells.htm


A research team led by Australian scientists says a strange quantum
phenomenon during photosynthesis that allows algae to survive in low lights
levels might lead to more efficient organic-based solar cells.

The exact function of the quantum effect known as coherence in algae is
unknown, they say, but likely is how they harvest energy from the sun at low
light levels.

"We studied tiny single-celled algae called cryptophytes that thrive in the
bottom of pools of water, or under thick ice, where very little light
reaches them," says senior study author Paul Curmi of the University of New
South Wales.

While the light-harvesting method of most such types of algae displays
quantum coherence, a genetic mutation altering a light-harvesting type of
protein in some algae causes it to be switched off, the researchers found.

The finding will allow the study of the role quantum coherence plays in
photosynthesis by comparing algae with and without those proteins, Curmi
said.

In the often baffling realm of quantum physics, systems deemed to be
coherent -- having all their quantum waves moving in step - can exist in
different states at the same time, an effect called superposition, the
researchers said.

"The assumption is that this could increase the efficiency of
photosynthesis, allowing the algae and bacteria to exist on almost no
light," Curmi said.

The assumption is that quantum coherence allows energy from captured
sunlight to get to the algae's photosynthesis reaction centers as fast as
possible, he said.

"It was assumed the energy gets to the reaction [center] in a random
fashion, like a drunk staggering home," Curmi said. "But quantum coherence
would allow the energy to test every possible pathway simultaneously before
travelling via the quickest route."

The researchers said they utilized X-ray crystallography in order to analyze
the structure of light-harvesting centers in three species of algae.

All showed the genetic mutation that changed proteins and affected
coherence, they said.

"This shows cryptophytes have evolved an elegant but powerful genetic switch
to control coherence and change the mechanisms used for light harvesting,"
Curmi said.

In addition to possible pointing the way to better and more efficient
organic solar cells, the finding could lead to a new class of quantum-based
electronic devices, the researchers said.

Their next step, the researchers said, would be to analyze and compare
different cryptophytes inhabiting different environmental niche to see if
the quantum coherence effect is a factor in their survival.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Solar power's "bright future"

I hope so. I must admit I was a bit taken aback so I was kind of hoping
someone here might contradict this guy!


On 18 June 2014 15:46, Russell Standish  wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:30:13PM +1200, LizR wrote:
> > http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/headlines/Reichelstein-solar-2012.html
> >
> > Although the cost of solar has been dropping as mentioned he reckons we
> are
> > 15 years away from it being viable for the average householder to install
> > it.
> >
>
> Really that long? 2 years ago it was viable with the extraordinary
> feedin tariff we got here (60c - about 3 times the cost of
> electricity at the time, about twice what it is now). A ton of people
> installed it at the time. (Well actually many, many tons, if you want
> to be pedantic.) At the rate electricity costs are going up, I expect
> it would be viable within 5 years, even assuming the cost of
> photovolatics stays the same as it is now.
>
> Cheers
>
> --
>
>
> 
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
>  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
>  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)
>
> 
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Solar power's "bright future"


On 6/17/2014 7:30 PM, LizR wrote:

http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/headlines/Reichelstein-solar-2012.html

Although the cost of solar has been dropping as mentioned he reckons we are 15 years 
away from it being viable for the average householder to install it.


As I read it that's when he predicts PV, without tax subsidies, will be as cheap as fossil 
fuel power - but that's still allowing the fossil fuel plants to externalize the costs to 
the environment.  If coal fired plants had to sequester CO2 they'd already be more 
expensive than PV.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Disproving physicalism from COMP

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 06:54:25PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 17 Jun 2014, at 10:42, Russell Standish wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:27:02AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>
> >>On 16 Jun 2014, at 00:57, Russell Standish wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 01:33:14PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 14 Jun 2014, at 12:13, Russell Standish wrote:
> 
> >Changled title again, as this has wandered a lot from tronnies.
> >
> >On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 10:08:08AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>If there were a reason why a primitive matter was needed
> >>(to select
> >>and incarnate consciousness), there would be number X
> >>and Nu which
> >>would emulate validly "Brunos and Davids" finding that
> >>reason, and
> >>proving *correctly* that they don't belong only to
> >>arithmetic, which
> >>would be false, and that is  a mathematical
> >>contradiction, even if
> >
> >Why is it false? Why couldn't the numbers X and Nu belong both to
> >arithmetic and the primitive matter?
> 
> That could happen, but that could also not happen.
> >>>
> >>>Then the proof is not false.
> >>
> >>Yes, it is. If the proof was correct, it could not happen.
> >
> >Are you trying to suggest that you've derived a contradiction here? If
> >so, then I don't see it.
> 
> Are you OK with the fact that the existence of primitive matter is
> consistent with arithmetic, but that the non existence of primitive
> matter is also consistent with arithmetic?
> 

Yes. 

> If yes, the contradiction comes from the fact that the zombies (in
> this context) in arithmetic would be able to validly prove the
> existence of primitive matter, when assuming Peter Jones could
> *validly* argues (= proves) that there is primitive matter and
> simultaneously say "yes" to the doctor.
> 

Why is that a contradiction? 


And why do you say that anybody (whether zombie or not) can *prove*
the existence of primitive matter? We don't know that for a fact.

> If no, then you have to tell me which of 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... *is*
> primitive matter (only the standard numbers, as only them belongs to
> all models of the arithmetical theories (RA, PA). But you can't do
> that, as we already know at this stage that the appearance of the
> primitive matter involves infinities of arithmetical relations.
> 
> We cannot decide to put 0 and its successors in the primitively
> material without doing a category error.
> 

It seems like we're talking finitism here, rather than primitive
matter. But in any case, I answered yes, above. The properties of
arithmetic shouldn't depend on the existence of primitive matter.


-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Solar power's "bright future"

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:30:13PM +1200, LizR wrote:
> http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/headlines/Reichelstein-solar-2012.html
> 
> Although the cost of solar has been dropping as mentioned he reckons we are
> 15 years away from it being viable for the average householder to install
> it.
> 

Really that long? 2 years ago it was viable with the extraordinary
feedin tariff we got here (60c - about 3 times the cost of
electricity at the time, about twice what it is now). A ton of people
installed it at the time. (Well actually many, many tons, if you want
to be pedantic.) At the rate electricity costs are going up, I expect
it would be viable within 5 years, even assuming the cost of
photovolatics stays the same as it is now.

Cheers

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: "Rats! I should have done that, not this!"

On 18 June 2014 14:46, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Fair enough. In any case the undersea volcanos seem to do what AGW cannot,
> and the fixes are identical, if it was fully, true. There is also the
> wonderfulness of exploding calderra's, meteors, a new ice age, disease
> breakout, so here we are, as always, on the edge of oblivion.
>

The only way to avoid it, imho, is to keep advancing our technology. We
have to keep advancing because if we fail - if we lose our technological
abilities - there are no easily available fossil fuels to start a new
Industrial Revolution. And then we will be stuck on this planet, sitting
ducks for the next comet or disease or whatever.

At this moment the big threats seem to be resource depletion and climate
change. If we can face up to them and tackle them, we'll be better prepared
for whatever is coming down the track next.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: "Rats! I should have done that, not this!"



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Solar power's "bright future"

http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/headlines/Reichelstein-solar-2012.html

Although the cost of solar has been dropping as mentioned he reckons we are
15 years away from it being viable for the average householder to install
it.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Quantum Logic as Classical Logic

[That paper]

































(my head)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Near the crux of any possible TOE

OK, let's scratch Brent's moustache...


On 18 June 2014 09:16, John Mikes  wrote:

> Liz, the fact that you have no mustache does not authorize you to joke
> about it. I have one and feel offended ()
> (Many ladies may agree who sonner or rather later grow one).
> JM
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:47 AM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> On 17 June 2014 20:39, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 16 Jun 2014, at 02:54, John Mikes wrote:
>>>
>>> [] - and with Shift: {}
>>> It was right under my nose. I just did not think abut it.
>>>
>>> That happen very often. We rarely expect to find under the nose what we
>>> search for some period of time :)
>>>
>>
>> That might happen, for example, if Brent lost his moustache! [?]
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Context effects reveal quantum probabilities in surveys

Sorry to be dense. So are they just saying "this looks similar to a result
we get with quantum systems" - but not actually suggesting there's any
specific mechanism involved to connect one to the other?

If so, this might be like the analogies my son's fond of drawing.

Him  "Hey mum, did you know that there's a direct correlation between
consumption of peanut butter in the US and motorcycle accidents?"
Me   "No" (thinks) "Do you mean per head?"
Him  "Yes, per capita - *and* there's one between sour cream consumption
and snowboarding accidents..."
Me   "Gosh. It can't be just coincidence."
Him  "Can I interest you in signing a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide,
which is used in rocket fuel yet appears in many foodstuffs? It's lethal in
large quantities..."

He's 15. Apparently he gets the factoids off a website.



On 18 June 2014 12:33, meekerdb  wrote:

>  I don't think they're assuming or applying anything.  They're just
> noting that, as an empirical fact, the way people answer poll questions
> obeys a reciprocity principle just like switching the order of state
> preparation and measurement in QM.
>
> Brent
>
>
> On 6/17/2014 5:05 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> How does standard QM explain it? They mention several times that it does
> so via a "law of reciprocity" which is involved when a system switches
> states. But how do you apply QM when the "system" is a person? Are they
> assuming that decision making comes down to the state of some quantum-scale
> system that the person is using as a source of randomness?
>
>
> On 18 June 2014 05:03, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  Quantum effects in belief.  Can comp explain this?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>  Original Message 
>>
>>
>>  *In recent years, quantum probability theory has been used to explain a
>> range of seemingly irrational human decision-making behaviors. The quantum
>> models generally outperform traditional models in fitting human data, but
>> both modeling approaches require optimizing parameter values. However,
>> quantum theory makes a universal, nonparametric prediction for differing
>> outcomes when two successive questions (e.g., attitude judgments) are asked
>> in different orders. Quite remarkably, this prediction was strongly upheld
>> in 70 national surveys carried out over the last decade (and in two
>> laboratory experiments) and is not one derivable by any known cognitive
>> constraints. The findings lend strong support to the idea that human
>> decision making may be based on quantum probability.*
>>
>>  *These findings suggest that quantum probability theory, initially
>> invented to explain noncommutativity of measurements in physics, provides a
>> simple account for a surprising regularity regarding measurement order
>> effects in social and behavioral science.*
>>
>>
>> http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-theory-reveals-puzzling-pattern.html
>>
>>  http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/06/11/1407756111
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Context effects reveal quantum probabilities in surveys

I don't think they're assuming or applying anything.  They're just noting that, as an 
empirical fact, the way people answer poll questions obeys a reciprocity principle just 
like switching the order of state preparation and measurement in QM.


Brent

On 6/17/2014 5:05 PM, LizR wrote:
How does standard QM explain it? They mention several times that it does so via a "law 
of reciprocity" which is involved when a system switches states. But how do you apply QM 
when the "system" is a person? Are they assuming that decision making comes down to the 
state of some quantum-scale system that the person is using as a source of randomness?



On 18 June 2014 05:03, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Quantum effects in belief.  Can comp explain this?

Brent

 Original Message 


/In recent years, quantum probability theory has been used to explain a 
range of
seemingly irrational human decision-making behaviors. The quantum models 
generally
outperform traditional models in fitting human data, but both modeling 
approaches
require optimizing parameter values. However, quantum theory makes a 
universal,
nonparametric prediction for differing outcomes when two successive 
questions (e.g.,
attitude judgments) are asked in different orders. Quite remarkably, this 
prediction
was strongly upheld in 70 national surveys carried out over the last decade 
(and in
two laboratory experiments) and is not one derivable by any known cognitive
constraints. The findings lend strong support to the idea that human 
decision making
may be based on quantum probability./
/
/
/These findings suggest that quantum probability theory, initially invented 
to
explain noncommutativity of measurements in physics, provides a simple 
account for a
surprising regularity regarding measurement order effects in social and 
behavioral
science./

http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-theory-reveals-puzzling-pattern.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/06/11/1407756111



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything 
List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: Films I think people on this forum might like

2014-06-17 Thread chris peck

>> That is logically impossible from the first person point of view. You 
>> describe the 3p view only.

Nice straw man! Whats practically impossible is for one point of view to 
simultaneously accomodate the experience of both surviving and dieing. No one 
questions that. However, that an individual could anticipate both surviving and 
drowning, and anticipate the certainty of both experiences in a duplication 
context doesn't even approach logical impossibilty. 

>> In the 3p pictures, yes. Not in the 1p views. Given the protocol given, you 
>> cannot from the first person view simultaneously drawn and not-drawn. There 
>> is no telepathy between the copies.

The fact that copies have different experiences doesn't introduce doubt into 
the mind of the original about what he will experience. In this instance, he 
will anticipate both. he will have 1p nightmares about drowning and 1p dreams 
about the glory of the prestige.  Alternatively, he will reject the idea that 
they are actual copies of him at the requisite substitution level and never 
conduct the illusion (he'll say no to the doctor). 

You cant have it both ways.

In anycase, the movie is clear on the matter. It is the magician's macabre fate 
to know he will suffer drowning to ensure he can reap the glory. Its what makes 
him such a pitiful character.

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:08:24 +1200
Subject: Re: Films I think people on this forum might like
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

Seconded. One could I suppose put the posts in small faint letters to make them 
less noticeable, but I can't see any SPOILER tags on this forum!

On 18 June 2014 03:28, Terren Suydam  wrote:

On behalf of the people who haven't actually seen the film, could people please 
put "Spoiler Alert" in the email before you give away crucial details to a 
movie?  Many of the films mentioned in this thread I haven't seen. If I had 
read Chris's post before watching The Prestige I would have been pissed off.

Thanks,Terren

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:20 AM, chris peck  wrote:

>>  It makes even more mysterious your resistance to UDA

Well The Prestige is a film about obsession and the lengths people go to meet 
them. Its not about the UDA.

It does contain a teleport machine in it and the naughty magician keeps 
duplicating himself and killing off one of the duplicates.

At one point, when arguing about what sacrifices he has made for his art, he 
points out that every night he is in a state of horror because he doesn't know 
whether he will end up at the back of the stage or drowning in the vat. 
ofcourse, he is just in a state of denial because he ought to know precisely 
what he will experience: survival to the prestige AND drowning. Its not as if 
there could be any doubt about it. The set up makes both experiences certain. 
But its not really a flaw in script, because the audience sees it clearly. Its 
why its such a macabre ending. Here is man so obsessed with bettering his rival 
that he reduces his life to a living hell drowning himself every night. The 
goody magician's sacrifices are bad enough, losing a finger, losing a wife, 
losing a brother. But the naughty magicians sacrifices are deliberate and 
knowing self annihilation and its this that makes his story so horrifically 
tragic. 

Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 13:53:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Films I think people on this forum might like
From: johnkcl...@gmail.com

To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> "The Prestige" may just be the best movie in the last 15 years. 

> So we agree on this. 

Yes.

> It makes even more mysterious your resistance to UDA 

I see absolutely no contradiction between thinking that "The prestige" is 
saying something profound that rings true and thinking that the things that the 
Universal Dance Association says that are profound are not true and the things 
that it's saying that are true are not profound.

  John K Clark

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 

You received this message because you are subs

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute


On 6/17/2014 4:55 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

Nevertheless, I could well imagine there being some groups that could
justify employing a researcher to perform the necessary literature
search and creatively summarise the results to feed into someone
else's work. Politicians spring to mind as having this need, for example.


That's a large part of what law clerks do for lawyers and judges.  My daughter took a 
summer job when she was in graduate school to find, review, and summarize research papers 
on measurement of water pollution in fresh water lakes.  I think the deal was for 100 
papers at $15 each.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Films I think people on this forum might like

Seconded. One could I suppose put the posts in small faint letters to make
them less noticeable, but I can't see any SPOILER tags on this forum!


On 18 June 2014 03:28, Terren Suydam  wrote:

> On behalf of the people who haven't actually seen the film, could people
> please put "Spoiler Alert" in the email before you give away crucial
> details to a movie?  Many of the films mentioned in this thread I haven't
> seen. If I had read Chris's post before watching The Prestige I would have
> been pissed off.
>
> Thanks,
> Terren
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:20 AM, chris peck 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> >>  It makes even more mysterious your resistance to UDA
>>
>> Well The Prestige is a film about obsession and the lengths people go to
>> meet them. Its not about the UDA.
>>
>> It does contain a teleport machine in it and the naughty magician keeps
>> duplicating himself and killing off one of the duplicates.
>>
>> At one point, when arguing about what sacrifices he has made for his art,
>> he points out that every night he is in a state of horror because he
>> doesn't know whether he will end up at the back of the stage or drowning in
>> the vat. ofcourse, he is just in a state of denial because he ought to know
>> precisely what he will experience: survival to the prestige AND drowning.
>> Its not as if there could be any doubt about it. The set up makes both
>> experiences certain. But its not really a flaw in script, because the
>> audience sees it clearly. Its why its such a macabre ending. Here is man so
>> obsessed with bettering his rival that he reduces his life to a living hell
>> drowning himself every night. The goody magician's sacrifices are bad
>> enough, losing a finger, losing a wife, losing a brother. But the naughty
>> magicians sacrifices are deliberate and knowing self annihilation and its
>> this that makes his story so horrifically tragic.
>>
>> --
>> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 13:53:15 -0400
>>
>> Subject: Re: Films I think people on this forum might like
>> From: johnkcl...@gmail.com
>> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>> >> "The Prestige" may just be the best movie in the last 15 years.
>>
>>
>> > So we agree on this.
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> > It makes even more mysterious your resistance to UDA
>>
>>
>> I see absolutely no contradiction between thinking that "The prestige" is
>> saying something profound that rings true and thinking that the things that
>> the Universal Dance Association says that are profound are not true and the
>> things that it's saying that are true are not profound.
>>
>>   John K Clark
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Context effects reveal quantum probabilities in surveys

How does standard QM explain it? They mention several times that it does so
via a "law of reciprocity" which is involved when a system switches states.
But how do you apply QM when the "system" is a person? Are they assuming
that decision making comes down to the state of some quantum-scale system
that the person is using as a source of randomness?


On 18 June 2014 05:03, meekerdb  wrote:

>  Quantum effects in belief.  Can comp explain this?
>
> Brent
>
>  Original Message 
>
>
>  *In recent years, quantum probability theory has been used to explain a
> range of seemingly irrational human decision-making behaviors. The quantum
> models generally outperform traditional models in fitting human data, but
> both modeling approaches require optimizing parameter values. However,
> quantum theory makes a universal, nonparametric prediction for differing
> outcomes when two successive questions (e.g., attitude judgments) are asked
> in different orders. Quite remarkably, this prediction was strongly upheld
> in 70 national surveys carried out over the last decade (and in two
> laboratory experiments) and is not one derivable by any known cognitive
> constraints. The findings lend strong support to the idea that human
> decision making may be based on quantum probability.*
>
>  *These findings suggest that quantum probability theory, initially
> invented to explain noncommutativity of measurements in physics, provides a
> simple account for a surprising regularity regarding measurement order
> effects in social and behavioral science.*
>
>  http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-theory-reveals-puzzling-pattern.html
>
>  http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/06/11/1407756111
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:15:17PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Russell Standish 
> wrote:
> 
> > Solving differential equations still requires creativity, and will always
> > do so
> >
> 
> OK fine, but can you find the exact solutions to differential equations
> better than Mathematica?  I don't think so.
> 

Not me personally, but the professional mathematicians studying DEs
definitely. There are new solutions being discovered all the time, and
its by humans, not mathematica. Mathematica's integrate operator (and
the equivalent desolve operator) is basically a convenient interface
that applies standard algorithms such as variable substitution, and
integration by parts to a database of known solutions.

Of course I can conceive of a machine being able to generate new
solutions where none existed before, say by an evolutionary algorithm,
and I would actually call such a machine creative, but it's not been
done yet for DEs.

> > Perhaps you mean computing a numerical approximation
> 
> 
> Computers are better than humans at that too.

I never said they weren't. My claim was that optimising the
performance of numerical integration still involves human creativity.

> 
> > I disagree that being a research librarian doesn't take creativity,
> 
> 
> At one time it took a lot of creativity to be a good research librarian but
> not anymore, today computers are good at it and creativity is whatever a
> computer isn't good at. Yet.
> 

What's changed is that Google has automated a lot of the curation and
indexing parts of a librarian's job (the uncreative parts) such that a
academic researcher can perform the necessary creative aspects of literature
research without the need of a specialist librarian.

Nevertheless, I could well imagine there being some groups that could
justify employing a researcher to perform the necessary literature
search and creatively summarise the results to feed into someone
else's work. Politicians spring to mind as having this need, for example.

> > I don't think image recognition ever took creativity - it was always
> > something we're kind of good at for evolutionary reasons.
> 
> 
> One thing that AI research has taught us is that we were completely wrong
> about what was inherently easy and what was inherently hard. Telling the
> difference between a whale and a watermelon takes far more brainpower than
> solving differential equations, it's just that to our ancestors on the
> African savanna being good at solving differential equations didn't much
> increase the likelihood your genes would make it into the next generation,
> but being good at image recognition did. If you like all human beings could
> just glance at a differential equation and instantly know what its
> solutions were with virtually no effort you'd say it required no
> creativity; but if you had to go down lots of logical dead ends and it took
> you many hours of deep thought before you were able to tell the difference
> between a whale and a watermelon you'd say it took great creativity.
> 

Creativity is not related to difficulty of the task. I agree that
image recognition is computationally difficult. But its not
creative. Devising image recognition algorithms is creative, however.

Similarly, if some genius could devise 5 new solutions to differential
equations over their morning coffee, then that genius is creative. It
would be a no less creative task if every member of our species could
do the same task.

-- 

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: "Rats! I should have done that, not this!"

On 18 June 2014 11:05, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Volcano's? I am not sure of any under the North Pole. I never said human
> (7 billion) never had an impact. I did say that whatever the impact is, is
> not what the other side is saying, as in exaggerated for
> political-ideological, and economic reasons. Plus, I have concluded that
> the politicians and their billionaires haven't done anything realistic to
> drive back the incoming seas, such create artificial reefs, figure out ways
> to gather and store wind and sun, and do this in a definitive way. Nada.
> Conclusion, they exaggerating. Volcanos under the western self are the
> fact, so maybe the ruling class will be forced to do as I say. If somebody
> smart said, the north pole is shrinking due to reasons not particularly
> related to pollution (AGW) would you accept that? Based on the research I
> mean?
>
> Yes of course. Current thinking is that melting around the Arctic is being
accelerated by something like soot deposits, which change the albedo and
makes the ice absorb more heat from the Sun. That isn't therefore a
greenhouse effect, though it is due to human industry. (However that's only
acceleration on top of an existing shrinkage that is presumably due to
global temperature rises.)

I'm sure there are exaggerations and so on, as you say, but it doesn't take
a lot of independent research to show that a lot of scientific bodies agree
that the Earth has warmed and that the CO2 has risen, and it starts to seem
implausible that they are all being told what to do by some shadowy
organisation and that all the charts and graphs and satellite pictures have
been manipulated, rather than just being reported facts. Interpretation is
a different thing again, theory suggests CO2 rises cause temperature rises,
the physics is well understood ... but even if it's only a correlation, we
could be in trouble.

I agree we should be doing something about it, but then I've been saying
that for years. If we can't prevent it - and reducing the CO2 would almost
certainly cool the Earth, regardless of what's caused the temperature rise
- then it would be a good idea to at the very least plan to live with it,
rather than sit back and hope for the best. So far we have droughts,
storms, shrinking water tables, deforestation, ocean acidification, the
dwindling of easily-reachable fossil fuel resources, etc - and if trends
continue, we ain't seen nuffin yet. So it would be a good idea to do *something
*before the Earth joins the rest of Fermi's paradox.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: Films I think people on this forum might like

2014-06-17 Thread chris peck

yeah, The Grand Budapest Hotel was a blast. Cinema for cinema's sake.

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 19:39:32 +0200
Subject: Re: Films I think people on this forum might like
From: multiplecit...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

Recently had fun with this in cinema, now out on DVD/Blueray:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Fg5iWmQjwk

Not really for content, profound depths, ideological stance, substance, plot, 
and this kind of serious set of one dimensional attributes, but more for its 
general attitude to telling a story and how the film makes an audience feel 
after viewing. PGC

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: "Rats! I should have done that, not this!"


You know when the head of the UN IPCC says "we change our results at the 
requests of the governments" as the dude stated last September, its reasonable 
to conclude that, that its not pure research, as in basic research, but 
research performed for who pays. Its ideology driving this. The question is 
what to do? In my case, nothing, but pester you, and beg for logic, reason, 
experience, and research to lead the way. With climate fanatics, we're are not 
getting this, nor are we getting ideas on remediation, just complaint, 
complaint, as to why we need the UN to run everything. This disgusts me, but 
that's my burden, not yours.
 
 
-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Jun 17, 2014 6:54 pm
Subject: Re: "Rats! I should have done that, not this!"



Sea level rise isn't just caused by ice melting. Above 4C water expands when 
heated, and as far as I have been able to determine with google-fu, the 
majority of the earth's oceans are above 4C and hence if warmed will rise even 
if no ice melts.









On 18 June 2014 10:46, LizR  wrote:



On 18 June 2014 10:17, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

Comment 2. He is the billionaire hedge fund manager who funds all Marxist 
causes worldwide. He is the Koch brothers of the progressives, who is never 
heard about. The rising of sea levels is now a very interesting issue as its 
now demonstrated that undersea volcano's are melting Antarctic ice, but its not 
related to AGW. The solutions or adjustments appear to be identical, never the 
less. AGW fades under the power of geophysics, which is the force that has 
shaped this planet since day one, with live, and evolution, and everything else.



You're hedging a bit yourself there. Once you throw in "life and evolution", 
you've effectively admitted that life in the form of 7 billion humans could 
well be shaping the planet. By the way, the Arctic ice is retreating and 
Greenland is melting, too, there must be a lot volcanoes around.






-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: "Rats! I should have done that, not this!"


Volcano's? I am not sure of any under the North Pole. I never said human (7 
billion) never had an impact. I did say that whatever the impact is, is not 
what the other side is saying, as in exaggerated for political-ideological, and 
economic reasons. Plus, I have concluded that the politicians and their 
billionaires haven't done anything realistic to drive back the incoming seas, 
such create artificial reefs, figure out ways to gather and store wind and sun, 
and do this in a definitive way. Nada. Conclusion, they exaggerating. Volcanos 
under the western self are the fact, so maybe the ruling class will be forced 
to do as I say. If somebody smart said, the north pole is shrinking due to 
reasons not particularly related to pollution (AGW) would you accept that? 
Based on the research I mean?

You're hedging a bit yourself there. Once you throw in "life and evolution", 
you've effectively admitted that life in the form of 7 billion humans could 
well be shaping the planet. By the way, the Arctic ice is retreating and 
Greenland is melting, too, there must be a lot volcanoes around.


 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Jun 17, 2014 6:46 pm
Subject: Re: "Rats! I should have done that, not this!"



On 18 June 2014 10:17, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

Comment 2. He is the billionaire hedge fund manager who funds all Marxist 
causes worldwide. He is the Koch brothers of the progressives, who is never 
heard about. The rising of sea levels is now a very interesting issue as its 
now demonstrated that undersea volcano's are melting Antarctic ice, but its not 
related to AGW. The solutions or adjustments appear to be identical, never the 
less. AGW fades under the power of geophysics, which is the force that has 
shaped this planet since day one, with live, and evolution, and everything else.


You're hedging a bit yourself there. Once you throw in "life and evolution", 
you've effectively admitted that life in the form of 7 billion humans could 
well be shaping the planet. By the way, the Arctic ice is retreating and 
Greenland is melting, too, there must be a lot volcanoes around.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: "Rats! I should have done that, not this!"

Sea level rise isn't just caused by ice melting. Above 4C water expands
when heated, and as far as I have been able to determine with google-fu,
the majority of the earth's oceans are above 4C and hence if warmed will
rise even if no ice melts.





On 18 June 2014 10:46, LizR  wrote:

> On 18 June 2014 10:17, spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> Comment 2. He is the billionaire hedge fund manager who funds all Marxist
>> causes worldwide. He is the Koch brothers of the progressives, who is never
>> heard about. The rising of sea levels is now a very interesting issue as
>> its now demonstrated that undersea volcano's are melting Antarctic ice, but
>> its not related to AGW. The solutions or adjustments appear to be
>> identical, never the less. AGW fades under the power of geophysics, which
>> is the force that has shaped this planet since day one, with live, and
>> evolution, and everything else.
>>
>> You're hedging a bit yourself there. Once you throw in "life and
> evolution", you've effectively admitted that life in the form of 7 billion
> humans could well be shaping the planet. By the way, the Arctic ice is
> retreating and Greenland is melting, too, there must be a lot volcanoes
> around.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: "Rats! I should have done that, not this!"

On 18 June 2014 10:17, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Comment 2. He is the billionaire hedge fund manager who funds all Marxist
> causes worldwide. He is the Koch brothers of the progressives, who is never
> heard about. The rising of sea levels is now a very interesting issue as
> its now demonstrated that undersea volcano's are melting Antarctic ice, but
> its not related to AGW. The solutions or adjustments appear to be
> identical, never the less. AGW fades under the power of geophysics, which
> is the force that has shaped this planet since day one, with live, and
> evolution, and everything else.
>
> You're hedging a bit yourself there. Once you throw in "life and
evolution", you've effectively admitted that life in the form of 7 billion
humans could well be shaping the planet. By the way, the Arctic ice is
retreating and Greenland is melting, too, there must be a lot volcanoes
around.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Selecting your future branch

On 18 June 2014 04:23, John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:55 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
>  >> Other that the fact than your use of personal pronouns was
>>> inexcusably sloppy and inconsistent for a good logician, I have long since
>>> forgotten the details of your "proof".  But are you telling me that the
>>> grand conclusion of step 3 reached after pages of verbiage was "I don't
>>> know"? The first 2 steps must have been even more trivial, no wonder I
>>> stopped reading.
>>>
>>> > You should read it, THEN criticise. (Although this seems to be a
>> common mistake.)
>>
>
> I read the first 3 steps,  Bruno made blunders in step 3; a proof is built
> on the foundations of previous steps therefor it would be idiotic to keep
> reading a proof, any proof, after a mistake has been found.
>

That's fair enough. Obviously I missed the blunder in step 3 when I read it
- what is it?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Rapture of the Nerds - Jessica Roy, Time Magazine

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinugishable from magic" -
well, it may be, if the laws of physics allow it.

By the way uploading minds appears to assume comp. (At least if you're
going to actually survive the process, rather than "merely thinking you
did" !)


On 18 June 2014 10:31, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> For sure. A better, in my opinion, version of terasem,. is dr. guilo
> prisco's Turing Church (a pun) in which he advances Cosmist principles the
> he and dr. ben goetzel, sort of evolved over the years. These guys do a
> cheerful node at Hans Moravec, and Frank Tipler's visions, with endorsing
> them, specifically. Depending on how I am feeling, I tend to look to
> astronomer, Bernard Carr, (queens u London) as a sort of scientific
> visionary that leans toward the paranormal view of life. He also realizes
> that nobody else in his field does, but this is what makes him interesting.
> Uploading or a vastly, extended, life and you may be in the cards, or it
> may be a very, long, time down the road.
>
> Similarly, many have read Yurgen Scmidhhuber, or Brian Whitworth who
> contend that its all a simm.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: meekerdb 
> To: Barrett Meeker 
> Sent: Tue, Jun 17, 2014 4:13 pm
> Subject: Fwd: The Rapture of the Nerds - Jessica Roy, Time Magazine
>
>
>
>
>  Original Message 
>
> the text below is from the following link, and is printed in this week's
> Time Magazine
> http://time.com/66536/terasem-trascendence-religion-technology/
>
>
> NEWSFEED  SOCIETY
>  The Rapture of the Nerds
>
>- Jessica Roy/Melbourne Beach 
>@JessicaKRoy 
>
> April 17, 2014
>
>
> 
>
>  A new religion has set out to store memories for centuries and deliver
> its believers into a world where our souls can outlive our selves
> In the backyard of a cottage here overlooking the water, two poles with
> metal slats shaped like ribcages jut out from the ground. They look
> indistinguishable from heat lamps or fancy light fixtures.
> These are satellite dishes, but they aren’t for TV. They’re meant for
> dispatching “mindfiles,” the memories, thoughts and feelings of people who
> wish to create digital copies of themselves and fling them into space with
> the belief that they’ll eventually reach some benevolent alien species.
> Welcome to the future. Hope you don’t mind E.T. leafing through your diary.
> The beach house and the backyard and the memory satellites are managed by
> 31-year-old Gabriel Rothblatt , a
> pastor of Terasem , a new sort of religion
> seeking answers to very old kinds of questions, all with an abiding faith
> in the transformative power of technology.
> “Technology does feel and smell and look and act like a God.”Beneath the
> cottage is a basement office where the mindfile operation is headquartered.
> Next door is an ashram, an airy glass building with walls that slide away
> to reveal a backyard home to a telescope for stargazing and a space to
> practice yoga. Tucked behind a shroud of greenery, most neighbors don’t
> even know this house of worship exists.
> The name Terasem comes from the Greek word for “Earthseed,” which is also
> the name for the futuristic religion found in the Octavia Butler sci-fi
> novel *Parable of the Sower
>  *that
> helped inspire Gabriel’s parents, Bina and Martine Rothblatt, to start
> their new faith. Martine founded the successful satellite radio company Sirius
> XM  in 1990. (Martine was originally known as
> Martin . She had
> sex reassignment surgery 20 years ago.)
> Organized around four core tenets—“life is purposeful, death is optional,
> God is technological and love is essential”–Terasem is a “transreligion,”
> meaning that you don’t have to give up being Christian or Jewish or Muslim
> to join. In fact, many believers embrace traditional positions held by
> mainstream religions—including the omnipotence of God and the existence of
> an afterlife—but say these are made possible by increasing advancements in
> science and technology.
> “Einstein said science without religion is lame. Religion without science
> is blind,” Martine Rothblatt tells TIME. “Bina and I were inspired to find
> a way for people to believe in God consistent with science and technology
> so people would have faith in the future.”
> Sure, it’s easy to dismiss people who think they can somehow cheat death
> with a laptop. But Terasem is a potent symbol of a modern way of life where
> the digital world and the emotional one hav

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

On 18 June 2014 08:43,  wrote:

> I understand clocks in satellites do not run at the same speed as clocks
> here on earth.  However, I just can't understand why we would use
> Einstein's equations to adjust the clocks on satellites when it would be
> so easy to adjust them in accordance to the exact time here on earth.
>

That isn't the point. For all I know they may adjust them using clocks on
Earth. The point is that the satellites provide yet another way to test
special and general relativity, and since scientists are always trying to
check their theories are correct, they consider it worthwhile to work out
how fast or slow these theories say the satellites' clocks will run and
compare this to the measured values. The results are in accordance with
both theories - working out the time dilation due to the satellites'
relative motion and their position in the Earth's gravity field gives the
observed result.

Note that SR and GR give this result without needing any free parameters to
be tweaked. SR involves simple geometry applied to 4 dimensional
space-time; as far as I know the only "free" parameter is the speed of
light. GR involves the gravitational constant (I think) but I'm told there
are no simple ways in which the equations can be modified to give similar
results. Hence the clock rate is "forced" to have a particular value in
both theories - the result falls out naturally from the theories without
any need to introduce any corrections that could equally well have given
other results.

Here  is
a more detailed description of this effect.

If you have a theory that can give the same result (with a similar lack of
"wriggle room" for adjusting free parameters) then you should get some
serious interest from scientists.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: "Rats! I should have done that, not this!"


Comment 2. He is the billionaire hedge fund manager who funds all Marxist 
causes worldwide. He is the Koch brothers of the progressives, who is never 
heard about. The rising of sea levels is now a very interesting issue as its 
now demonstrated that undersea volcano's are melting Antarctic ice, but its not 
related to AGW. The solutions or adjustments appear to be identical, never the 
less. AGW fades under the power of geophysics, which is the force that has 
shaped this planet since day one, with live, and evolution, and everything else.

Correction, it will be if warmed 2 degrees C. Who is George Soros?

 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Jun 17, 2014 3:57 pm
Subject: Re: "Rats! I should have done that, not this!"



On 18 June 2014 05:26, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

Clathrates? Its a gas! May George Soros glower his jowls upon thee!



Correction, it will be if warmed 2 degrees C. Who is George Soros?




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Near the crux of any possible TOE

2014-06-17 Thread John Mikes

Liz, the fact that you have no mustache does not authorize you to joke
about it. I have one and feel offended ()
(Many ladies may agree who sonner or rather later grow one).
JM



On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:47 AM, LizR  wrote:

> On 17 June 2014 20:39, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 16 Jun 2014, at 02:54, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>> [] - and with Shift: {}
>> It was right under my nose. I just did not think abut it.
>>
>> That happen very often. We rarely expect to find under the nose what we
>> search for some period of time :)
>>
>
> That might happen, for example, if Brent lost his moustache! [?]
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

2014-06-17 Thread jross

I understand clocks in satellites do not run at the same speed as clocks
here on earth.  However, I just can't understand why we would use
Einstein's equations to adjust the clocks on satellites when it would be
so easy to adjust them in accordance to the exact time here on earth.

> On 17 June 2014 07:57,  wrote:
>
>> I don't know about Einstein's 13 tensor equations and their exact
>> results.
>>
>
> You should at least know that that is how a physical theory works.
>
>
>>  I just don't believe space can be curved.
>
>
> Why not? It just needs a higher dimension. Actually there are
> interpretations of Einstein's equations that don't require space to be
> curved, but just change the distances within it to give the same result
> (somehow - I'm not very up on this, but I think the explanation involved a
> picture by MC Escher).
>
>
>> And I do believe Coulomb fields can be curved.
>
>
> I'm not sure what this means. How, and in what way?
>
>
>> Our Universe is not a mathematical structure; it is a
>> combination of atoms and molecules and light and other things that can
>> be
>> explained with physics.  We just need to use the right physics.
>>
>
> So why is maths so effective at explaining the nature of existence?
>
>>
>> As for correcting the clocks in satellites, I doubt if they rely on
>> Einstein's equations.
>
>
> You're wrong. They do.
>
>
>> My understanding is that his equations say that
>> time passes slower at high speeds and faster at reduced gravity.  The
>> simple way to correct for time variations in the satellites is to adjust
>> the clocks every now and then to make sure they are consistent with the
>> time here on earth.  My guess is that is what they do.
>>
>
> They have to be adjusted constantly, since GPS would drift out by several
> meters / day otherwise. The point is that the time dilation of the GPS
> clocks is exactly what is predicted by Einstein's equations. If you're
> going to attempt to explain the universe, you need to do at least as well
> as relativity.
>
> PS I still have some questions about this cold plasma shell thing by the
> way.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: "Rats! I should have done that, not this!"

On 18 June 2014 05:26, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Clathrates? Its a gas! May George Soros glower his jowls upon thee!
>

Correction, it will be if warmed 2 degrees C. Who is George Soros?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Democracy

2014-06-17 Thread John Mikes

Telmo,
are you kidding, or expecting some proposal for a solution from me?

The only one that comes to mind is *"rehire Dr. Guillotine* and let him
chop off the heads that are in the way of a better system."
Then come your next questons:

1:"what would you call a "better system"?
Easy: the one without our present difficulties.
2:"How would you implement the betterment" against the existing forces in
power FOR that rotten system we want to improve upon?
Easy: I dunno.
3:"Do you visualize a bloody revolution?"
Answer: with whom? those having a fighting spirit and 'dare' may fight for
worse solutions than we have now.
 I spare us questions 4 - 1000.

What raises the remark I received from several list-members lately denying
my being a *real* agnostic (...I am sure about so many things... etc.)
*Real?*
I am agnostic according to my own definition, not any other one:
I BELIEVE in infinite unknowables (for our ongoing mentality) both in # and
qualia that however exercise influence upon our thinking and events. And:
I do not KNOW those unknowables either. We have vague ideas about what the
hell is "out there" in the infinite Everything - all adjusted to our
restricted mentality to the ways we CAN think (so far). We cannot know them
exactly - have no way to get to them. So I am an agnostic, not as the stale
dictionary of past scientific registers formulate it.

Just as I am -NOT- an atheist in the 'religious' sense (= not believing the
ubiquitous definitions of the 'GOD(s)' of registered religions).

*I quickly add: I am no missionary and do not want to p[ersuade anybody to
accept my ideas. *Tell me where I am wrong - I may learn from it.

Thanks for engaging into this discussion with me

John Mikes

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 10:34 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 6/15/2014 3:25 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:32 PM, John Mikes  wrote:
>>
>>> Telmo:
>>>
>>> I am a multilinguist (similar to you I suppose) and consider the word
>>> 'democracy' as the rule "Cratos" of "DEMOS". the totality of people. You
>>>  (and probably others, too) mean It
>>> as a practical political format based on expression of desire by MANY
>>> (majority - called) 'voters'.
>>>
>>
>>  John, I agree with your definition. My fear is that democracy cannot be
>> protected from a collapse into a dictatorship of the average, and a
>> misinformed average in the worst case. I would say that it becomes a
>> dictatorship when it starts to legislate on things that it has no ethical
>> basis to legislate on, usually in the guise of fear and "the public
>> interest". Thus the wars on nouns...
>>
>>
>>>   Although it sounds commendable, it also is an  oxymoron:
>>> not  T W O  people want the same (interest, policy, advantage, style and
>>> 1000 more, if you wish) so the 'voting' (hoax) is a compromise about those
>>> lies of the candidates: which are LESS controversial compromise - as
>>> formulated during the campaign.
>>>
>>   (It has little impact on the real activities an elected politician
>>> will abide by indeed).
>>>
>>
>>  Ok.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> One thing is for sure: a "MAJORITY" vote implies a subdued MINORITY as a
>>> rule (in the US lately arond close to half and half). Furthermore I see no
>>> "so callable" democracy neither in authoritarian (religious, fascistic)
>>> systems, nor in extreme 'populist' attempts, like the Marxist-base,
>>> communist, or socialist (called in these parts: liberal) systems.
>>>
>>
>>  Agreed.
>>
>>
>>>   The CAPITA:ISTIC  (evolved slavery?) variations  are
>>> aristocratic/feudal  at best, if not aristocratic/fascistic, ie.
>>>  plutocratic. (I call it Global Economic Feudalism).
>>>
>>
>>  This is true of modern global capitalism, no doubt. What do you propose?
>>
>>  Best,
>> Telmo.
>>
>>
>> You and John Mikes are taking the original, literal meaning of
>> "democracy"; rule by majority vote of the demos (which was not *all* the
>> people, but let that pass).  The more modern conception is constitutionally
>> limited government; one in which there is a difficult to modify
>> constitution that limits the scope of government(s) and ensures there scope
>> for individual and community freedoms.
>>
>
> There's an extra lock in the door, but it doesn't stop being a door. The
> majority can remove the restrictions on the scope of government. In
> practice, this doesn't seem to be necessary: constitutions are being
> removed by being declared "unfashionable", and the majority referes to
> those who demands that their individual freedoms be respected as
> "constitution nuts".
>
> The freedoms of the minorities exist only at the discretion of the
> majority. The only hope for democracy is that the majority can be sane (and
> remain sane).
>
>
>>
>> Unfortunately, many in middle-east ignore this last part and take
>> democracy to mean that whoever is in the majority can impose their ideas at
>> every level from foreign relations to wha

Re: "Rats! I should have done that, not this!"

On 15 Jun 2014, at 22:51, meekerdb wrote:

On 6/15/2014 3:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 15 Jun 2014, at 08:12, meekerdb wrote:

On 6/14/2014 10:19 PM, LizR wrote:

On 15 June 2014 16:49, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/14/2014 9:37 PM, LizR wrote:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140608-regret-rats-neuroscience-behavior-animals-science

Interesting that this experiment is all about qualia, which we're
told are ineffable and can't be possessed by computers because
they're not human.

Yes. At least we assume there are qualia involved. The experiment
only measures their "neural correlates" (since you can't ask a
rat what it's experiencing, obviously that's all they can do, of
course).

But if you asked and the rate replied that would just be a
different neural correlate.

However, I'm sure Bruno would be happy to allow a suitably
programmed computer to have qualia.

Bruno proposes that consciousness goes along with being able to
understand the proof of Godel's incompleteness theorem. I think
that's too high a bar. There must be different levels and kinds of
consciousness.

Come on Brent, I isist I put the consciousness bar at the universal
level, which makes bacteria, and Robinson Arithmetic, already
conscious.

Yes, you set the bar very low. But I think you do it by giving
"conscious" a new technical meaning.

I don't do that. I use comp to associate consciousness to some entity.
As I said, I don't use this in the thesis, but today, I find possible
that universal machine have a dissociated form of consciousness
similar to some altered consciousness state.

When you write "universal level" you have in mind Turing complete
computation - which is a possibility having nothing to do with what
is actually computed.

Only universal machines compute. Computation is always bound up to be
related with at least one universal machine. It is consciousness with
total amnesia. It is the state of consciousness before it
differentiates in alternate histories.

That may be a convenient definition for logical inference, but it's
far from what people generally mean by "conscious".

Whatever physicist say about matter and time today, it's far from what
people generally mean by "matter and time".

If you keep comp, consciousness is that thing that you cannot defined,
but still want to be preserved in the surgeon digital transplant. It
is incorrigible, non justifiable, etc. We need only to agree on some
semi-axiomatic.

The understanding of Gödel's theorem is at the Löbian level, at
that is the level of *self-consciousness". That comes perhaps with
octopus, cuttlefishes, some spider, and is much more rich.

But octopi and spiders don't even have language to formulate Godel's
theorem.

Yes they do. You can formulate Godel theorem with hundreds of neurons.
You can build a Löbian person by implementing simple induction axioms
on simple data structures.

You are not Löbian because you understand Löb's theorem. You
understand Löb's theorem because your brain is enough self-
referentially correct and rich to emulate the one which is your 3p
you. Note that the first person is not a Löbian machine, and is not
even a machine from her perspective (God knows better).

I think that there are different levels of self-consciousness.

Me too.

The more basic is one that distinguishes self from environment. But
for social animals there is also consciousness of one's place
relative to others in the society. These are easily explained as
evolutionary adaptations. Being able to diagonalize arithmetical
functions is not.

I think we are confusing level. The spider brain "diagonalize" at some
level of description, in the same sense that the spider brain obeys
QM. The point is that very simple machines are universal, and very
simple machine are Löbian. It is the difference between Robinson
Arithmetic (no induction axiom) and Peano Arithmetic or ZF set theory
(enough induction axioms).

Diagonalization is a tool for the Löbian machines interested in their
ideal (?) possible theology.

And there's this experiment:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/36705/title/Manipulating-Mouse-Memory/

Which is another step toward being able to engineer
consciousness. Once that is possible, questions about
qualia will seem just another way of talking about neuroscience.

You wish. That engineering assumes computationalism, and we still
have to explain physics from machine's introspection, or you just
invoke a primitive magical matter to avoid taking the consequence
of a theory.

I don't see that the theory has any consequence outside of assigning
labels. That's why I have pressed you for some testable
prediction. For example, your theory might have something to say
about the holographic principle or the black hole firewall problem
because those are both

Re: "Rats! I should have done that, not this!"



On 16 Jun 2014, at 00:13, LizR wrote:


On 16 June 2014 08:51, meekerdb  wrote:
I don't see that the theory has any consequence outside of assigning  
labels.  That's why I have pressed you for some testable  
prediction.  For example, your theory might have something to say  
about the holographic principle or the black hole firewall problem  
because those are both on the border of physics and information.


Nice question.Those points are also on the border between GR and QM,  
I believe. If comp could actually get a result in that sort of area,  
that would be very impressive.


It has to be like that for QM, from which space-time might be defined,  
if we get the tensor calculus.


Keep in mind that if comp is true, GR and QM cannot solve the mind- 
body problem at all, nor even address it really (except today more and  
more QM people realize the importance of the notion of information,  
which some indeed makes physical, not without good argument. The fact  
that energy seems to be needed to erase information is very troubling  
in that respect.





Somehow I doubt anything like that's on the (event) horizon, though...


I think GR and QM will be expalined in term of simpler theory, by  
physicists, and thsi again explained in term of simpler theory, by  
physicists, and eventually get the simplest theory which will be  
derived from arithmetic.


We can dig on both side.

To use comp today to get GR directly (like we get QM logic) would be  
like trying to use string theory to make better pizza.
I exaggerate a bit, as Golblatt got a nice other result which might be  
exploited here, like the axiomatization of a notion of "now it is the  
case that, and it will always be the case that"  in Minkowski  
spacetime, with a soundness and completness of the modall logic S4.2 =  
S4 + <>[]p -> []<>p. That is a strong weakening of the modal quantum  
logic formula p -> []<>p, and it might make sense for some p in the  
sigma_1 arithmetical intepretation of either S4Grz1, Z1* and X1*.


Diodorus Chronus is a ancinet greek who defined "necessary" by "now  
and always" , and that has been studied extensively with notion of  
linear time. But Goldblatt model spacetime by the Minkwski space, and  
gives the logic of the diodorean modalities.



Goldblatt Robert, "Diodorean Modality in Minkowski Space time". In his  
book:


Goldblatt, R. I. (1993). Mathematics of Modality. CSLI Lectures Notes,  
Stanford California.



http://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-Modality-Center-Language-Information/dp/1881526232


So we might not be that far from GR. IIrreflexivity, like when staring  
from G, could make the logic distinguishing two and three dimensions!


Bruno




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE



On 16 Jun 2014, at 02:01, LizR wrote:


On 16 June 2014 11:08, meekerdb  wrote:
On 6/15/2014 3:03 PM, LizR wrote:
And it depends a lot on what you think about mathematics; whether  
it's just a precise and and strictly logical subset of language or  
whether it's really real ur-stuff.


Yes, that's one way to rephrase what I just said. My only addition  
is that if you think the former, then you should explain why it  
works so well.


I should think that's obvious.  What "works to well" was invented by  
us to describe the world as *we* experience it.


I don't buy that solipsistic stuff. I'm fairly sure the science  
we've "invented" could have been discovered by anyone in the universe.


Notice we keep having to invent new mathematics as our instruments  
and observations get better.


You keep trying to slip in "invented" as though we aren't  
discovering how the world works. But we are, as having it kick back  
in thousands of ways (computers work, aeroplanes work, antibiotics  
work, rockets to the Moon work...) has shown.


Did Plato include non-commutative geometry or transfinite cardinals  
among his perfect forms?


Was there some point to that sentence? Looks like a hand waving  
attempt to discredit Platonism tout court. We're not supposed to be  
here to play silly rhetorical games (and you didn't even specify the  
"I'm being a politician" hat). So Plato didn't predict future maths,  
whoopy-do.



You are right. Aristotle didn't predict future math too, nor future  
physics.


The question is only which theory explains better the facts, without  
eliminating person and consciousness.







There are huge parts of mathematics which seem to do no work  
whatsoever. Just look at https://oeis.org/ (try entering "liz"), a  
favorite of a mathematician friend of mine.  I'd say that's a mark  
against Platonism; yet it's just what you'd expect if they are just  
extensions of a logical language game.


What you wouldn't expect if they are "just extensions of a logical  
language game" is for someone to invent maths that turns out to have  
physical applications centuries later. Yes that's happened several  
times.


Even Einstein eventually understood that there is a possibilly non  
trivial and fundamental mathematical reality.


The doctrine that math is only a language is called "conventionalism".  
It is debunked by elementary arithmetic and elementary computer science.





Meanwhile, maths with no application is exactly what you'd expect if  
the MUH is true. Not saying this is evidence for the MUH, but at  
least it's consistent with it. But not with "we're making up science  
as a logical language game / cultural construct" stuff.


I can understand "mathematical theory", or "mathematical structure" or  
"mathematical truth", but "mathematical universe" is quite fuzzy for  
me. (But then I am a mathematician, and I am aware of the failure of  
all serious attempt to get a unifying theory. This does not mean there  
is no big interest of what mathematicians found when searching for  
such mathematics, which go from arithmetic itself to category theory,  
n-category theory, toposes.
Assuming comp adding anything to the natural numbers is misleading at  
the ontological level. The numbers themselves will add the axioms  
needed in their relative histories.








I'm open to suggestions, of course, but so far Tegmark's MUH seems  
to be the only one I've heard that seems to have any philosophical  
teeth.


How about some empirical teeth.

Having any type of teeth puts it ahead of the competition.

When I said I'm open to suggestions I meant ones which at least fit  
in with our current state of knowledge, not appeals to ideas that  
we're inventing science as a language game, or rhetorical tricks  
about Plato not inventing calculus. You're better than this, Brent,  
I actually feel rather insulted by the level of response you've  
given me this time.


You should not.  take it easy. Brent might have got a cold or  
something. He seems indeed usually more convincing.


Bruno



Do you really think I'm so stupid that I can just be fobbed off with  
postmodernist nonsense, rather than some decent arguments?



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group

Re: Quantum Logic as Classical Logic

2014-06-17 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Thanks. It looks interesting. K is amazing by itself. It is "löbian" in
> the sense that the theorems of K are closed for the Löb rule:  if K proves
>  []A -> A, for some modal formula A, then K proves A. []([]A->A)->[]A is
> true about K.
>
> I will take a look when I have the times, and I hope it is not "trivial",
> as K is indeed very weak and very general, and  I could argue that there is
> some substance (pun) in Birkhoff and von Neumann.
>

I felt a bit uneasy about this going through the paper with "refutation"
ringing in my head, so any observations are most welcome :-) PGC


> He might also be fuzzy on observer. The comp hypothesis automatically
> enrich the normal and non normal modalities.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> On 16 Jun 2014, at 08:16, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  This may be of interest.
>
> Brent
>
>
> Quantum Logic as Classical Logic
> Simon Kramer
> (Submitted on 13 Jun 2014)
>
> We propose a semantic representation of the standard quantum logic QL
> within the classical, normal modal logic K via a lattice-embedding of
> orthomodular lattices into Boolean algebras with one K-modal operator. Thus
> the classical logic K is a completion of the quantum logic QL. In other
> words, we refute Birkhoff and von Neumann's classic thesis that the logic
> (the formal character) of Quantum Mechanics would be non-classical as well
> as Putnam's thesis that quantum logic (of his kind) would be the correct
> logic for propositional inference in general. The propositional logic of
> Quantum Mechanics is modal but classical, and the correct logic for
> propositional inference need not have an extroverted quantum character. The
> normal necessity K-modality (the weakest of all normal necessity
> modalities!) suffices to capture the subjectivity of observation in quantum
> experiments, and this thanks to its failure to distribute over classical
> disjunction. (A fortiori, all normal necessity modalities that do not
> distribute over classical disjunction suffice.) The key to our result is
> the translation of quantum negation as classical negation of observability.
>
> Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph); Logic in Computer Science
> (cs.LO); Mathematical Physics (math-ph); Logic (math.LO); Quantum Algebra
> (math.QA)
> Cite as: arXiv:1406.3526 [quant-ph]
>   (or arXiv:1406.3526v1 [quant-ph] for this version)
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On 16 Jun 2014, at 03:37, Kim Jones wrote:


hY

You don't need to have a theory of intelligence in order to use one,  
any more than you need to know how to tune a piano in order to know  
how to play one or understand the workings of a combustion engine to  
know how to drive a car. There is less of a need to have a theory of  
intelligence than there is a need for people to act intelligently.  
Someone can be plain daft and still show excellent thinking skills.  
There are many examples of those who made good with absolutely no  
chance at all in the IQ stakes.




I like to sum up this by explaining the difference between little  
geniuses and big geniuses:


Little geniuses say little stupidities. Big geniuses say big  
stupidities.


I distinguish intelligence from competence.

Intelligence is needed to develop competence, but competence has a  
negative feedback on intelligence.


I think intelligence is more something like a state of mind, a sort of  
alertness not to conclude too quickly on anything.
 In judo, it would be the art of falling well, as intelligence might  
be the courage to recognize our error.

An ability to change one's mind about something.

Intelligence might be related to the trust of some adults to you when  
you are a little kid. Too much "yes" or too much "no" put intelligence  
in peril.


Intelligence needs love (which might need two universal numbers).


Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Democracy


I think the Papal-Italian state of 1870, conflict appeared something like this-
 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0OL6W-xSJw
 
 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Jun 16, 2014 8:02 pm
Subject: Re: Democracy


On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 03:40:52PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
> On 6/16/2014 2:02 PM, John Mikes wrote:
> >E.g.: stone the women piously, chop off hands piously, etc.
> >Major branches, like Shia and Sunni? the jihadists?
> >The problem is they have no "pope" with authority since 500AD.
> 
> The best thing about the pope is that he has no battalions.
> 

Interestingly, during the reunification of Italy in 1870, the Papacy did put
up a token military resistance to defending Rome against the advancing
Italian army, even though overwhelmingly outnumbered. The Pope did not
voluntarily relinquish his real world territory.

This lead to nearly 50 years of bickering between the Pope and Italy
that was eventually resolved by Mussolini in the creation of the
Vatican.

In practice, the real political and military power of the Pope was
broken by Napoleon some 70 years earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_States

Cheers

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Films I think people on this forum might like

2014-06-17 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

Recently had fun with this in cinema, now out on DVD/Blueray:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Fg5iWmQjwk

Not really for content, profound depths, ideological stance, substance,
plot, and this kind of serious set of one dimensional attributes, but more
for its general attitude to telling a story and how the film makes an
audience feel after viewing. PGC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Democracy

Tribal? It's mostly the non-Kufar, doing this. Family honor, and its always 
against the females. Here's a fix in the west. Families which sanction murders, 
lose social benefits completely. Family support, medical care. But, its guilt 
by association! Me: Yeah! But Allah is more important then mere earthly stuff! 
Yeah! But we'll do it anyway. Its a partial fix, and I bet it will help 
fighting this practice. 

Honor killings are more a matter of tribalism.  When giving young women in 
marriage is the 
main way of cementing tribal alliances the "honor" of the women becomes of 
existential 
importance to the tribe.

Brent

-Original Message-
From: meekerdb 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Jun 16, 2014 6:40 pm
Subject: Re: Democracy

On 6/16/2014 2:02 PM, John Mikes wrote:
> E.g.: stone the women piously, chop off hands piously, etc.
> Major branches, like Shia and Sunni? the jihadists?
> The problem is they have no "pope" with authority since 500AD.

The best thing about the pope is that he has no battalions.

> The US-dwelling Muslims refrain of declarations that would have defamed them, 
> nevertheless "pious" honor killings are on.

Honor killings are more a matter of tribalism.  When giving young women in 
marriage is the 
main way of cementing tribal alliances the "honor" of the women becomes of 
existential 
importance to the tribe.

Brent

> As I explained several times, this is not against Muslims, Christians kill as 
well 
> (abortion Docs lately and Inquisition some time ago) - piously.
> Indians put widows into the fire consuming the husband's body - piously.
> Aztec etc. priests ate the executed human offerings (mostly girls with tender 
flesh) 
> also very piously.
> Crap.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: "Rats! I should have done that, not this!"


Clathrates? Its a gas! May George Soros glower his jowls upon thee!

 thought you'd be pleased! God there really is no pleasing you, is there?


Clathrates are next up! (Eek! Armageddon outta here...)


 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Jun 16, 2014 5:58 pm
Subject: Re: "Rats! I should have done that, not this!"



On 16 June 2014 22:44, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

Liz, have you Kiwis no sense of shame? 
 
http://news.yahoo.com/zealand-may-kick-start-race-mine-ocean-floor-211229873--finance.html;_ylt=AwrBJR66KJ5Taz0APtTQtDMD
 
Ah, Kiwis,weak link, in the global chain of world socialism and environmentaly 
correct thinking!


I thought you'd be pleased! God there really is no pleasing you, is there?


Clathrates are next up! (Eek! Armageddon outta here...)



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Quantum Logic as Classical Logic

Thanks. It looks interesting. K is amazing by itself. It is "löbian"  
in the sense that the theorems of K are closed for the Löb rule:  if K  
proves  []A -> A, for some modal formula A, then K proves A. []([]A- 
>A)->[]A is true about K.


I will take a look when I have the times, and I hope it is not  
"trivial", as K is indeed very weak and very general, and  I could  
argue that there is some substance (pun) in Birkhoff and von Neumann.  
He might also be fuzzy on observer. The comp hypothesis automatically  
enrich the normal and non normal modalities.


Bruno


On 16 Jun 2014, at 08:16, meekerdb wrote:


This may be of interest.

Brent


Quantum Logic as Classical Logic
Simon Kramer
(Submitted on 13 Jun 2014)

We propose a semantic representation of the standard quantum  
logic QL within the classical, normal modal logic K via a lattice- 
embedding of orthomodular lattices into Boolean algebras with one K- 
modal operator. Thus the classical logic K is a completion of the  
quantum logic QL. In other words, we refute Birkhoff and von  
Neumann's classic thesis that the logic (the formal character) of  
Quantum Mechanics would be non-classical as well as Putnam's thesis  
that quantum logic (of his kind) would be the correct logic for  
propositional inference in general. The propositional logic of  
Quantum Mechanics is modal but classical, and the correct logic for  
propositional inference need not have an extroverted quantum  
character. The normal necessity K-modality (the weakest of all  
normal necessity modalities!) suffices to capture the subjectivity  
of observation in quantum experiments, and this thanks to its  
failure to distribute over classical disjunction. (A fortiori, all  
normal necessity modalities that do not distribute over classical  
disjunction suffice.) The key to our result is the translation of  
quantum negation as classical negation of observability.


Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph); Logic in Computer Science  
(cs.LO); Mathematical Physics (math-ph); Logic (math.LO); Quantum  
Algebra (math.QA)

Cite as: arXiv:1406.3526 [quant-ph]
  (or arXiv:1406.3526v1 [quant-ph] for this version)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Context effects reveal quantum probabilities in surveys

Quantum effects in belief. Can comp explain this?

Brent

Original Message

/In recent years, quantum probability theory has been used to explain a range of seemingly
irrational human decision-making behaviors. The quantum models generally outperform
traditional models in fitting human data, but both modeling approaches require optimizing
parameter values. However, quantum theory makes a universal, nonparametric prediction for
differing outcomes when two successive questions (e.g., attitude judgments) are asked in
different orders. Quite remarkably, this prediction was strongly upheld in 70 national
surveys carried out over the last decade (and in two laboratory experiments) and is not
one derivable by any known cognitive constraints. The findings lend strong support to the
idea that human decision making may be based on quantum probability./

/
/
/These findings suggest that quantum probability theory, initially invented to explain
noncommutativity of measurements in physics, provides a simple account for a surprising
regularity regarding measurement order effects in social and behavioral science./

http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-theory-reveals-puzzling-pattern.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/06/11/1407756111

Re: Disproving physicalism from COMP



On 17 Jun 2014, at 10:42, Russell Standish wrote:


On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:27:02AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 16 Jun 2014, at 00:57, Russell Standish wrote:


On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 01:33:14PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 14 Jun 2014, at 12:13, Russell Standish wrote:


Changled title again, as this has wandered a lot from tronnies.

On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 10:08:08AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:



If there were a reason why a primitive matter was needed (to  
select
and incarnate consciousness), there would be number X and Nu  
which
would emulate validly "Brunos and Davids" finding that reason,  
and

proving *correctly* that they don't belong only to
arithmetic, which
would be false, and that is  a mathematical contradiction, even  
if


Why is it false? Why couldn't the numbers X and Nu belong both to
arithmetic and the primitive matter?


That could happen, but that could also not happen.


Then the proof is not false.


Yes, it is. If the proof was correct, it could not happen.


Are you trying to suggest that you've derived a contradiction here? If
so, then I don't see it.


Are you OK with the fact that the existence of primitive matter is  
consistent with arithmetic, but that the non existence of primitive  
matter is also consistent with arithmetic?


If yes, the contradiction comes from the fact that the zombies (in  
this context) in arithmetic would be able to validly prove the  
existence of primitive matter, when assuming Peter Jones could  
*validly* argues (= proves) that there is primitive matter and  
simultaneously say "yes" to the doctor.


If no, then you have to tell me which of 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... *is*  
primitive matter (only the standard numbers, as only them belongs to  
all models of the arithmetical theories (RA, PA). But you can't do  
that, as we already know at this stage that the appearance of the  
primitive matter involves infinities of arithmetical relations.


We cannot decide to put 0 and its successors in the primitively  
material without doing a category error.










That cannot be
validly related to the proof found by Bruno and David in the UD, as
you can conceive that arithmetical truth is independent of the
presence of absence of primitive matter.



Of course, but if you so conceive,


This follows from logic alone.




then presumably Bruno and David
never correctly find a reason why primitive matter is needed.


Indeed. That's the very point.

Bruno


Not really, because you've only proved a non inconsistency of the  
assumption

"arithmetical truth is independent of the presence of absence of
primitive matter", not its truth.


?

We have a model of PA without primitive matter. Indeed the usual (N,  
0, +, *) structure.


We have a model of PA with primitive matter. We add new constants in  
the language, plausibly a second type of variable (but that's is not  
necessary here) and let them denote primitively physical objects (or  
object we decide to assume such, continuing to play the role of Peter  
Jones (here I am really the Devil advocate). We don't even need to add  
any axioms although here a large spectrum of choice exist to extend  
arithmetic with primitive matter (whatever that is, but usually  
related to what we observe, like that moon or those bosons).


This shows the obvious: PA, by itself don't talk about primitive  
matter, no more than it can say any specific thing about non standard  
numbers or real numbers or sets). It talks on natural numbers and  
their relations.


So we cannot in PA, or in arithmetic, proves the existence of  
primitive matter, or its non-existence.


But if Peter Jones succeeded in convincing me *validly* (and thus all  
Bruno Marchal in all computations/models of (sigma_1) arithmetic) of  
the existence of some primitive matter, then such a *valid* argument  
would be a proof (by the completeness theorem of Gödel) which can be  
translated in arithmetic, and that would make inconsistent PA + ~PM,  
where PM is for  "it exists primitive matter". That contradicts the  
consistency of arithmetic without PM, as above.


Intuitively, it is even more shocking, as it would mean that the p- 
zombies of Peter Jones would "convince" validly all the p-zombies of  
Bruno Marchal, in all models of arithmetic, that primitive matter  
exist (when above we have a model with none). That is inconsistent  
with the fact that there are models of PA without primitive matter.


So yes, it seems to me that this shows that Peter Jones'  argument,  
when made precise enough to be valid, for maintaining a role of  
primitive matter for actual consciousness, leads to a contradiction.


So Peter argument has to be necessarily ineffective, making "primitive  
matter" into a god-of-the-gap. Which is what step 8 is supposed to show.


This is similar with the argument based on Gödel against mechanism.  
Once precise and valid enough, the machine can diagonalize and refute  
them. This was well seen by Judson Webb(*).


I

Re: Selecting your future branch

2014-06-17 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:55 PM, LizR  wrote:

>> Other that the fact than your use of personal pronouns was inexcusably
>> sloppy and inconsistent for a good logician, I have long since forgotten
>> the details of your "proof".  But are you telling me that the grand
>> conclusion of step 3 reached after pages of verbiage was "I don't know"?
>> The first 2 steps must have been even more trivial, no wonder I stopped
>> reading.
>>
>> > You should read it, THEN criticise. (Although this seems to be a common
> mistake.)
>

I read the first 3 steps,  Bruno made blunders in step 3; a proof is built
on the foundations of previous steps therefor it would be idiotic to keep
reading a proof, any proof, after a mistake has been found.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-17 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Russell Standish 
wrote:

> Solving differential equations still requires creativity, and will always
> do so
>

OK fine, but can you find the exact solutions to differential equations
better than Mathematica?  I don't think so.

> Perhaps you mean computing a numerical approximation

Computers are better than humans at that too.

> I disagree that being a research librarian doesn't take creativity,

At one time it took a lot of creativity to be a good research librarian but
not anymore, today computers are good at it and creativity is whatever a
computer isn't good at. Yet.

> I don't think image recognition ever took creativity - it was always
> something we're kind of good at for evolutionary reasons.

One thing that AI research has taught us is that we were completely wrong
about what was inherently easy and what was inherently hard. Telling the
difference between a whale and a watermelon takes far more brainpower than
solving differential equations, it's just that to our ancestors on the
African savanna being good at solving differential equations didn't much
increase the likelihood your genes would make it into the next generation,
but being good at image recognition did. If you like all human beings could
just glance at a differential equation and instantly know what its
solutions were with virtually no effort you'd say it required no
creativity; but if you had to go down lots of logical dead ends and it took
you many hours of deep thought before you were able to tell the difference
between a whale and a watermelon you'd say it took great creativity.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-17 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM,  wrote:

> sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk.
>

No problem.

> The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious,
> always show up together, never one on its own.
>

I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for certain is
conscious is you. And in fact you should know from personal experience that
what you say above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one
can remain conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs.

> So...I don't quite get how you satisfy yourself intelligence and
> consciousness are mutually independent?
>

I don't think that. And if Darwin was right (and he was) then one can be
conscious without being very intelligent but you CAN NOT be very
intelligent without being conscious. Evolution can see intelligence but it
can't directly see consciousness any better than we can, so if
consciousness were not a byproduct of intelligence and just be the way
information feels when it is being processed then there would not be any
conscious beings on planet Earth, and yet I know for a fact there is at
least one.

> The guy [Einstein] won a nobel for the photoelectric effect way before he
> did the flying on rainbows thing for insights. So Einstein was a
> nobel-genius.
>

I agree obviously, but suppose those discoveries had not been made by a
meat computer by the name of Einstein but instead had been made by a
silicon computer by the name of IBM. Would you then be making excuses and
saying the machine wasn't *really* intelligent for this bullshit reason and
that bullshit reason?

> Butfrom memory you accept MWI don't you?
>

I think it's probably less wrong than the other interpretations of Quantum
Mechanics.

> What sort of results does that explanation produce?
>

The outcome of the 2 slit experiment.  MWI also explains why so many of the
fundamental constants of physics seem to be such as to maximize the
possibility that life will develop.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Films I think people on this forum might like

2014-06-17 Thread Terren Suydam

On behalf of the people who haven't actually seen the film, could people
please put "Spoiler Alert" in the email before you give away crucial
details to a movie?  Many of the films mentioned in this thread I haven't
seen. If I had read Chris's post before watching The Prestige I would have
been pissed off.

Thanks,
Terren


On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:20 AM, chris peck 
wrote:

>
> >>  It makes even more mysterious your resistance to UDA
>
> Well The Prestige is a film about obsession and the lengths people go to
> meet them. Its not about the UDA.
>
> It does contain a teleport machine in it and the naughty magician keeps
> duplicating himself and killing off one of the duplicates.
>
> At one point, when arguing about what sacrifices he has made for his art,
> he points out that every night he is in a state of horror because he
> doesn't know whether he will end up at the back of the stage or drowning in
> the vat. ofcourse, he is just in a state of denial because he ought to know
> precisely what he will experience: survival to the prestige AND drowning.
> Its not as if there could be any doubt about it. The set up makes both
> experiences certain. But its not really a flaw in script, because the
> audience sees it clearly. Its why its such a macabre ending. Here is man so
> obsessed with bettering his rival that he reduces his life to a living hell
> drowning himself every night. The goody magician's sacrifices are bad
> enough, losing a finger, losing a wife, losing a brother. But the naughty
> magicians sacrifices are deliberate and knowing self annihilation and its
> this that makes his story so horrifically tragic.
>
> --
> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 13:53:15 -0400
>
> Subject: Re: Films I think people on this forum might like
> From: johnkcl...@gmail.com
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> >> "The Prestige" may just be the best movie in the last 15 years.
>
>
> > So we agree on this.
>
>
> Yes.
>
> > It makes even more mysterious your resistance to UDA
>
>
> I see absolutely no contradiction between thinking that "The prestige" is
> saying something profound that rings true and thinking that the things that
> the Universal Dance Association says that are profound are not true and the
> things that it's saying that are true are not profound.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Films I think people on this forum might like

On 17 Jun 2014, at 06:20, chris peck wrote:

>>  It makes even more mysterious your resistance to UDA

Well The Prestige is a film about obsession and the lengths people  
go to meet them. Its not about the UDA.

Of course, as it doesn't make the FPI explicitly, but it is a good  
introduction.

It does contain a teleport machine in it and the naughty magician  
keeps duplicating himself and killing off one of the duplicates.

At one point, when arguing about what sacrifices he has made for his  
art, he points out that every night he is in a state of horror  
because he doesn't know whether he will end up at the back of the  
stage or drowning in the vat. ofcourse, he is just in a state of  
denial because he ought to know precisely what he will experience:  
survival to the prestige AND drowning.

That is logically impossible from the first person point of view. You  
describe the 3p view only.

Its not as if there could be any doubt about it.

Yes, for the 3p description.
No, for the 1p view.

The set up makes both experiences certain.

In the 3p pictures, yes. Not in the 1p views. Given the protocol  
given, you cannot from the first person view simultaneously drawn and  
not-drawn. There is no telepathy between the copies.

Bruno

But its not really a flaw in script, because the audience sees it  
clearly. Its why its such a macabre ending. Here is man so obsessed  
with bettering his rival that he reduces his life to a living hell  
drowning himself every night. The goody magician's sacrifices are  
bad enough, losing a finger, losing a wife, losing a brother. But  
the naughty magicians sacrifices are deliberate and knowing self  
annihilation and its this that makes his story so horrifically tragic.

Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 13:53:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Films I think people on this forum might like
From: johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

>> "The Prestige" may just be the best movie in the last 15 years.

> So we agree on this.

Yes.

> It makes even more mysterious your resistance to UDA

I see absolutely no contradiction between thinking that "The  
prestige" is saying something profound that rings true and thinking  
that the things that the Universal Dance Association says that are  
profound are not true and the things that it's saying that are true  
are not profound.

  John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-17 Thread Kim Jones

On 17 Jun 2014, at 10:02 pm, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

>> What makes a human intelligent is CREATIVITY and that is by now well 
>> understood and no, machines (the human constructed ones) cannot do that yet.
> 
> Kim, what do you think of this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna 

I find that very exciting indeed, Telmo. This indeed looks like real creativity 
to me. The process of selecting the right shape came about by a random 
generator followed by evaluation of usefulness. That's precisely what Lateral 
Thinking is and does. 

This bit is even more to the point:

"The resulting antenna often outperforms the best manual designs, because it 
has a complicated asymmetric shape that could not have been found with 
traditional manual design methods." 

Creativity involves CURIOSITY ("Suck it and see..."). There is some kind of 
attractor that pulls the interest, the attention for a human that sends the 
mind in a certain direction. Judgement is suspended while exploration takes 
place. The machine on the other hand can approximate that with random choice 
algorithms. The only thing missing here from this is self-awareness. Otherwise 
I would say we have the basis of personhood. So, I was wrong. A machine can 
pull something out of nothing. It's still a bit zombified but getting close. 
Thanks.

Kim

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-17 Thread Telmo Menezes

>
> What makes a human intelligent is CREATIVITY and that is by now well
> understood and no, machines (the human constructed ones) cannot do that yet.
>

Kim, what do you think of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Near the crux of any possible TOE

On 17 June 2014 20:39, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 16 Jun 2014, at 02:54, John Mikes wrote:
>
> [] - and with Shift: {}
> It was right under my nose. I just did not think abut it.
>
> That happen very often. We rarely expect to find under the nose what we
> search for some period of time :)
>

That might happen, for example, if Brent lost his moustache! [?]

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Near the crux of any possible TOE



On 16 Jun 2014, at 02:54, John Mikes wrote:


[] - and with Shift: {}
It was right under my nose. I just did not think abut it.


That happen very often. We rarely expect to find under the nose what  
we search for some period of time :)


All the best,

Bruno






Thanx.


On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 14 Jun 2014, at 17:55, John Mikes wrote:

Bruno: my software reproduced none of the proposed parts of that  
"square".


You cannot do the left and right hooks [ and ] ?
Normally those are standard, and done with the parenthesis key, +  
some other keys.
Then the box is the concatenation of [ and ]. That gives [], which  
as symbol seems more solid in mails than some more special one.





Maybe your French base does it? I am on USA-English
and have Hungarian
as 2nd installed. (Or Microsoft is the culprit not liking 'square'  
ones?)



If you are using Microsoft I am afraid I can't help you!

Bruno






John


On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:26 PM, John Mikes   
wrote:
Dear Bruno, I find it beyond my aging capabilities to respond in  
all details to this long and diversed deluge of posts, also I have  
no learned basis to evaluate YOUR profession with those 'squares'  
for p etc. (btw HOW does your computer produce those squares?)
so I reflect to the title: "... any POSSIBLE  T O E" .  We talked  
about 'our' (not identical) agnosticism and in 'mine' a TOE is  
impossible for us, humans at the level of foreseeable development  
our mind(?) reached so far. We may cover a restricted (reduced?)   
TOE comprising the portion we so far adjusted to our mental  
capbilities.
Considering the unfathomable mass of 'observations' we received  
over the past millennia (not that we understood them - even as  
qualia accessible to us at times)
your position echoes in my mind as saying: we choose the most  
likely and this is a good basis for "science" (truth?) to proceed  
upon them.
Well, it is not for me. I rather claim "I dunno" and disclaim my  
Nobel prize.

TOE is bound to Everything, not the inventory-content of our books.
Similarly the mentioned "qualia" are humanly approvable,  
anthropocetric/morphic distortions for "whoknowswhat".
You ask: why gravity? because that was an observation (and name) of  
Newton.

Why spacetime? because Einstein said so.
Maybe YOUR universal machine knows more - why? because you said so.
Justifications, evidences are figments somebody found fittable.
The reason I write this is my plea for more humbleness in 'sciences'.
Somebody should get an award for NOT KNOWING.

Agnostically yours

John M



On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:
I (re)comment Brent, on this crucial topic, when tackling the mind- 
body problem, or the consciousness/matter problem.



On 11 Jun 2014, at 01:22, David Nyman wrote:

On 10 June 2014 21:04, meekerdb  wrote:

I would argue that, at the ontological level, the explanation *does  
indeed*
make heat, or temperature, "illusory". The whole point of the  
reduction is
to show that there could not, in principle, be any supernumerary  
something

left unaccounted for by an explanation couched exclusively at the
"primordial" level, whatever one takes that to be. Given that this  
is the
specific goal of explanatory reduction, what we have here is a  
precise
dis-analogy, in that there *is indeed* a disturbingly irreducible  
something
left behind, or unaccounted for, in the case of consciousness: i.e.  
the 1p

experience itself.

That is the key point. I guess written by David (and what follows  
just below is Brent's answer, and then David's reply).
As we have discussed this before,  if competence can be reduced to  
computer programs in a similar way that temperature can be reduced  
to molecules kinetic, the analogy does not work for consciousness,  
or at least not completely.
In fact it is here that the theaetetus idea get the morst  
effective, as it will explain that the analogy is wrong. If it was  
true, consciousness would be a 3p notion (both kinetic and  
temperature are 3p observable), but by showing that the [] and ([]p  
& p) obey different logics, despite proving the same 3p sentences p  
(something unbelievable for the machine) it justifies a distinct  
apprehension of a same truth from the different points of view  
existing for the machines.




(Brent:
You're simply assuming it's unaccounted for. The hypothesis was  
that there
might be a theory which was successful in "reading minds" and  
"predicting

thoughts" based on physical observation of a brain.

Not at all. Predicting is not explaining. Explaining is more in  
reducing-without-eliminating.




 Brent:

I'd say that is all
that can be done;

I think we can do more.



to ask for more is just anthropic prejudice about what an
explanation should look like - it's like asking, "But why does  
gravity want

to pull things together?"

Yes, why?  :)

And why gravity at all?

I give you the reason, roughly:  it is a consequence of the theory

Re: Disproving physicalism from COMP

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:27:02AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 16 Jun 2014, at 00:57, Russell Standish wrote:
> 
> >On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 01:33:14PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>
> >>On 14 Jun 2014, at 12:13, Russell Standish wrote:
> >>
> >>>Changled title again, as this has wandered a lot from tronnies.
> >>>
> >>>On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 10:08:08AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> 
> If there were a reason why a primitive matter was needed (to select
> and incarnate consciousness), there would be number X and Nu which
> would emulate validly "Brunos and Davids" finding that reason, and
> proving *correctly* that they don't belong only to
> arithmetic, which
> would be false, and that is  a mathematical contradiction, even if
> >>>
> >>>Why is it false? Why couldn't the numbers X and Nu belong both to
> >>>arithmetic and the primitive matter?
> >>
> >>That could happen, but that could also not happen.
> >
> >Then the proof is not false.
> 
> Yes, it is. If the proof was correct, it could not happen.

Are you trying to suggest that you've derived a contradiction here? If
so, then I don't see it.

> >
> >>That cannot be
> >>validly related to the proof found by Bruno and David in the UD, as
> >>you can conceive that arithmetical truth is independent of the
> >>presence of absence of primitive matter.
> >>
> >
> >Of course, but if you so conceive,
> 
> This follows from logic alone.
> 
> 
> 
> >then presumably Bruno and David
> >never correctly find a reason why primitive matter is needed.
> 
> Indeed. That's the very point.
> 
> Bruno

Not really, because you've only proved a non inconsistency of the assumption
"arithmetical truth is independent of the presence of absence of
primitive matter", not its truth.


-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: "Rats! I should have done that, not this!"



On 16 Jun 2014, at 01:11, meekerdb wrote:


On 6/15/2014 3:10 PM, LizR wrote:

On 16 June 2014 06:14, meekerdb  wrote:
If you can determine what a mouse, or a computer, is conscious of  
then you've engineered it.  The point of using the word "engineer"  
is that engineering is about getting the right effects; you don't  
necessarily need a deep theory to do engineering.


You've engineered what it's conscious of, but you haven't  
engineered its consciousness, as you claimed. That was already there.


But you've only inferred it from behavior, which you've  
manipulated.  So if you can manipulate it to make the behavior  
whatever you want you will have engineered its consciousness.  The  
alternative would be to embrace philosopical zombies - yeech!


And if you use primitive matter to actualize or singularize  
consciousness, you get infinities of p-zombies in arithmetic. That's  
another way to avoid step 8: just add the non existence of p-zombie  
(but I prefer more direct arguments).


Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Disproving physicalism from COMP



On 16 Jun 2014, at 00:57, Russell Standish wrote:


On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 01:33:14PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 14 Jun 2014, at 12:13, Russell Standish wrote:


Changled title again, as this has wandered a lot from tronnies.

On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 10:08:08AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:



If there were a reason why a primitive matter was needed (to select
and incarnate consciousness), there would be number X and Nu which
would emulate validly "Brunos and Davids" finding that reason, and
proving *correctly* that they don't belong only to arithmetic,  
which

would be false, and that is  a mathematical contradiction, even if


Why is it false? Why couldn't the numbers X and Nu belong both to
arithmetic and the primitive matter?


That could happen, but that could also not happen.


Then the proof is not false.


Yes, it is. If the proof was correct, it could not happen.






That cannot be
validly related to the proof found by Bruno and David in the UD, as
you can conceive that arithmetical truth is independent of the
presence of absence of primitive matter.



Of course, but if you so conceive,


This follows from logic alone.




then presumably Bruno and David
never correctly find a reason why primitive matter is needed.


Indeed. That's the very point.

Bruno




--


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: COMP falsifiability thread



On 16 Jun 2014, at 00:44, Russell Standish wrote:


On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 08:02:51AM -0700, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:


Your question may be coincidental, but it's pretty hard not to  
think there

is some connection with road crash taking place in what was the
Bruno-myself dialogue. You are also one people I relate to (no  
expectation

of reciprocation..that's not how it works).

So, please if possible give your answer to:

Falsification Thread:

1. I provided in fresh thread a clear definition of what I spoke of,
involving distinct properties at every point.

2. Is there a single response from Bruno, in which he actually  
compiles one

of his claims into such form he shows the same properties as in my
definition? Or where he explains why my definition is wrong?

How can it be reasonable that someone does not do this? Instead  
simply
repeats the same points? How can it be reasonable of others to  
simply turn

a blind eye to this, and then some of them begin demonizing me?

Please give your honest response to that, and whatever that is, be
reasonable and allow your position to be checked against the  
empirical

facts on this list in that thread.

That's all I ask

Similar issues the other threads but let's just go there to begin  
with.


Al, I have to admit I haven't been following the falsifiability thread
too closely. Too much heat and not enough light for my liking. I know
PGC will jump in and give me a stern lecture about about this, so PGC
- I've heard you before.

The thing is if I didn't skip over some conversations, I wouldn't have
any time to explore something in depth, such as when Brent brings up  
his

latest observation on quaternionic QM, or explaining the Born rule
from counting arguments.

If you remember, though, admitting this drove Elliot Temple into a
rage, which culminated in getting me booted off FoR. All because I  
have more

interest in some things rather than others :).

In terms of where I stand on falsifiability of COMP, I do see how
empirical predictions are possible from the AUDA, but that its a long
and hard road quite out of reach of mere mathematical mortals like
myself.

I don't see why COMP necessarily implies the AUDA, although I had a
glimmer of understanding at one point. But if the AUDA makes some
solid predictions, and is in fact falsified, then it will become
urgent to investigate whether the AUDA is in fact implied by COMP, as
claimed by Bruno. Until then, I'm quite happy leaving it as an
interesting possibility.


COMP does not necessarily imply AUDA, per se. Comp is enough or not  
enough according to your degree of acceptance of the classical theory  
of knowledge (that knowledge obeys []A -> A). But that theory can also  
be seen as a definition, so COMP would imply AUDA, for anyone  
believing in elementary arithmetic and accepting the classical theory  
of knowledge or Theaetetus definition.


AUDA makes solid predictions, as it provides the whole propositional  
logic of the observable, and up to now it does fit with quantum logic  
(the probability of this is null a priori).






So how does that fit in with your rather hard-nosed definition of
falsifiability involving novel predictions that other theories don't
make?


And thanks to the non trivial Löbianity, we get a richer quantum logic  
(more theorems), (like we get a richer epistemic intuitionist logic,  
S4 + Grz), and so get novel predictions, although some tedious work  
should be done to extract them, notably to optimize the modal theorem  
provers.






I can see that COMP may one day have that property, if the
consequences of the AUDA are fully worked out, but it doesn't now.


OK But that is "just" math. Of course an infinite work is awaiting the  
computationalist.





But
equally, I would say that a lot of science is also in the same boat. I
see you as chucking the baby out with the bathwater, all for the sake
of having a test of pseduo science that never gives a false-negative.


Hibbsa neglects my answer to him. Comp, or classical comp (comp +  
classical theory of knowledge) satisfies his falsification criteria.


Bruno





Cheers
--


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For m

Re: "Rats! I should have done that, not this!"